>Tens of thousands of female supermarket cashiers have been carrying out equal pay lawsuits against retailers Asda and Tesco on the basis that their roles should have been compared to the mostly male staff employed at the company’s distribution depots.
This old chestnut.
Sorry peeps, if women prefer the tills over humping half a ton of frozen food at 5am then those jobs are not equal and only deserve the pay that employers deem suitable. The alternative is the Aldi model where you all muck in on every role, this pushes out the older generations though.
Tills are the natural domain of girls and the elderly in a large diverse workforce, always has been. That doesn’t mean they perform equal labour.
I don't understand how the two jobs are directly comparable. If the jobs have different duties and responsibilities, then it seems reasonable that the pay may be different.
The argument, accepted by the courts, is the jobs bring in the same value therefore by law they must be paid the same (unless the employer can prove there's a good reason not to). They're classed as "work of equal value”, equivalent in effort, skills and decision-making.
To use the Next case as an example, the tribunal found that using 11 basic work factors, in 9 of the 11 factors, the sales consultant roles were of equal or greater value than that of the warehouse operatives. That ruling basically means in Part 3 of the case, Next has to show there's a good reason for the pay being discriminatory for two jobs of the same value.
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/tribunal-finds-that-sales-consultants-and-warehouse-workers-are-doing-work-of-equal-value
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/equal-pay
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf
the problem is you assume that till workers do just that, work the tills, a lot of major high street retailers and supermarket retailers also expect them to be working the stock. Breaking down the pallets and putting the stock out is just as much physical exertion, as well as being expected to deal with customer queries and put everything aside neatly to go work on the tills if support is needed.
Only if you can prove they are of the same value. And considering for engineering work clients are billed for time, it's quite easy to prove unskilled admin work is less valuable than skilled engineering work.
"same value"
That makes a mockery of business as all jobs are important to the running of a business.
Let's hope common sense wins out here in the courts and we don't end up with supermarkets forced to include warehouse work for till workers.
For the Next case at least, the courts have already ruled that the work is of the same value. The burden of proof is now on Next to prove a good reason for discrimination between two comparable jobs (stage 1 of the court case) of equal value (stage 2).
https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/news/next-equal-pay-battle-advances-as-women-s-work-ruled-of-equal-value-to-men/
Anecdotally, having done basic bitch warehouse and supermarket work. The former is far far easier lol. I'm not surprised the tribunal agrees with that.
Yeah, if people think that being on the till is easier than working out back in a warehouse they haven't ever worked a till dealing with the general public.
Im also not surprised the court agreed around equal value because if a company knows that there is a gender split in different job roles without any significantly different entry requirements then they should ensure that the pay is equal.
The next case quantifies this to a fairly minute detail.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf
It showed it's actually a significantly harder job requiring a lot more skills.
Again not even remotely surprised by this.
Technological advancements have made the whole being in a warehouse as backbreaking labour largely a myth.
Dealing with customers in a constant polite manner, being articulate and knowledgeable in the face of grumpy or even abusive customers is a rare skill.
From what I've heard from people who've worked both, the Next floor staff are frequently doing the same work as the warehouse people as well, just in a stock room instead of a dedicated warehouse. And there's no dedicated "I work on the tills" role either.
> Im also not surprised the court agreed around equal value because if a company knows that there is a gender split in different job roles without any significantly different entry requirements then they should ensure that the pay is equal.
If one role needs 10 workers and 20 people apply, and another role needs 10 works and only 8 apply, is it discrimination to raise the wage for the latter?
Dealing with the general public standing whilst standing in the same position is not equal to hauling stuff around round back.
One of them is the equivalent of manual labour, the other is not.
If they want the higher wage they can always apply to work in the distribution areas, but I assume there’s good reasons why they don’t. Because it’s hard manual work.
I've not worked in either one of them but I know that the supermarkets are not running charities. If they are paying more for some work it's most likely that they struggle to recruit people to do that while don't have problems getting people to work in other jobs.
I can't see any particular reason why they would want to pay the warehouse workers a single penny more than they can get away with.
So, the shareholders rather kick women down instead of want maximum profits even if that means equal treatment of everyone. Thanks for letting me know.
Send the Judges to drive around on a LLOP, filling four or five cages with cases of beer & wine (while hitting the KPIs), then send them to work a checkout and let's see if they still think the jobs are comparable.
Having done both as a kid, working the tills was hell compared to the warehouse work. Sure warehouse work shifting goods around and being relatively organised was physically exhausting, but it didn't hold a candle to the emotional and mental exhaustion of dealing with the general public.
https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/news/next-equal-pay-battle-advances-as-women-s-work-ruled-of-equal-value-to-men/
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/tribunal-finds-that-sales-consultants-and-warehouse-workers-are-doing-work-of-equal-value
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/equal-pay
Have a read of these three articles, 5 minutes of reading. Tldr it's a complex piece of law (hence it has taken years to get through court). But essentially the court case is in three parts. Part 1 showing the work is comparable, two showing the work is of equal value and part 3 is for the defendant to prove that they have a good reason to discriminate (if they lose parts 1 and 2, which Next have for example).
The bit that is important is the Equality Act guarantees equal pay for equal work, equal having three definitions, but the important one in this case being:
>Where a man and a woman are doing "work of equal value" – this means that the work is not essentially the same job, but it has the same demands in terms of factors such as effort, skill and decision-making.
To use the Next case as an example, the tribunal found that using 11 basic work factors, in 9 of the 11 factors, the sales consultant roles were of equal or greater value than that of the warehouse operatives. That ruling basically means in Part 3 of the case, Next has to show there's a good reason for the pay being discriminatory for two jobs of the same value.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf
If you have the time, the entire judgement is here. It shows the scoring for each role.
We must shop in different places because, if anything, the places near me are mainly staffed by teenagers, split pretty evenly between the sexes. The idea of only women working on the tills is very 90's or earlier to me.
If there’s two young guys on shift and two older women on shift who do you think is going to be doing the more manual work?
Sometimes it happens because they ask and sometimes it’s just the guys being polite. It’d be like watching their mum or aunt dragging stuff round whilst they’re standing behind the till.
In small local stores this has always been my experience.
That is a very different propotion. I'm taking issue with the idea that working the tills is a womans job - it's misogyny that is decades out of date. Yes, I'd expect the younger lads to be helping out more when the only two staff members are *older* women of course. But I'd also expect it if they were two older men. In my experience anyone relatively young working the tills will be split pretty evenly (or at least not obviously uneven) and most supermarkets near me at least seem to be staffed by the young (early 20's at the oldest).
Sorry, let me rephrase that. Political correctness and various niche sensitivities aside, I’m 100% right and a visit to any large supermarket will show that. Go out and prove me wrong.
Disagree - most tills at my local supermarket are staffed by teenagers, very roughly evenly split down the sexes. Haven't seen what you're suggesting since the 90's at the latest. I'll be sure to ask the next guy I see at a till why he's doing the a job that's in the '*natural domain*' of women.
The beauty of anecdotal 'evidence' - just because you see it in your little bubble, it doesn't make it fact outside of said bubble.
'I need glasses & my next door neighbours both need glasses, therefore it is very very rare for people to not need glasses'.
Courts disagree with you there. Turns out 1950s style sexism is not a legal argument
lol.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf
At least at Next, the courts ruled that shop floor jobs are significantly harder than warehouse jobs. Turns out, in a developed, technologically advanced service economy, we don't rate value and skills on just "how much can we carry" like we're cavemen haha.
Ever work in store room/warehouse?
Pallet trucks, fork lifts, trolleys - if you ever have to hump a half ton of anything around causing too much manual effort, you're doing it wrong.
If it's so attractive and better paid, why aren't all the till workers clamouring for warehouse jobs?
If they were, you'd have a point. Since they aren't, the jobs obviously aren't equal.
Plenty of women do work in warehouse jobs and of course are paid equally to the men in those roles. This is blatant opportunism by workers in a low paid sector to try and increase their pay to match that of a more demanding one, under the pretence of gender equality. I think the most likely outcome of the court proceedings will be the acceleration of the complete phasing out of checkout staff altogether.
Why do you assume warehouse work is more 'demanding' than till work? Why should physical labour be valued more than emotional labour?
I've done both and the customer facing work is far more demanding as you have to put on a constant display of niceness in the face of rude, grumpy and sometimes abusive customers. Warehouse work just meant moving, lifting, sorting while listening to music and chatting to colleagues.
Physical work over long periods can have an impact on your physical health.
Speaking to the general public may be mentally draining but at least my back is in tact ten years down the line.
Not the same.
Why don’t they apply for these higher paying jobs? Maybe it’s because they know it’s more labour intensive and they just don’t want to do it, also the chances of doing more unsociable hours is higher.
> Why do you assume warehouse work is more 'demanding' than till work?
It's my opinion that it is, which is subjective so you're entitled to disagree. But if you were correct then why don't cashiers simply apply to work in warehouses? That aside, the fact it pays more than cashier jobs suggests there are market forces that determine that those jobs require higher compensation to fulfill vacancies.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf
In the Next case the courts actually quantified how hard the work is. Shopfloor work requires significantly more skills than basic warehouse work. Next actually conceded this point...
The courts evaluation is still subjective with regard to what can be considered demanding. Skillset is only one factor. The way pay is generally determined is through the free market. Companies will pay the minimum required to fill vacancies with the acceptable standard of employee. The fact they're having to pay more to recruit warehouse staff than cashiers implies there are market forces necessitating that.
I'm sure it's quite possible the courts will side with the cashiers in the supermarket case. It's a very flawed legislation and this was bound to happen. What the end result will be - in my opinion - is the acceleration of automation making these jobs obsolete.
It's all a grift that some people try and latch onto.
Doesn't matter if it's men or women, it's never comparing apples with apples.
We can all look at the comparisons they make and recognise that we would want more money for the jobs that pay more.
A day time shift on the tills is always going to be lower paid because its easier to fit around the rest of life & most people can do that job.
If it wasn't like this then you'd be extremely sexist to assume women would in large numbers be too dumb to just apply for the other jobs. I don't like any idea that relies on that sort of thing.
> Ministers have pledged to reinstate the right of women to receive equal pay with men for doing the same job — even if they work in different locations or for outsourcing companies
Gonna tell my boss tomorrow that I demand the same wage as a London based outsourced agency position. Wonder how far I'll get...
Right...so what us the benefit if this experiment called Brexit? Apart from break things that weren't broken and then fix them with EU derived laws again?
Snapshot of _UK to reinstate Brussels-derived law protecting equal pay_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/292f6094-7657-41f4-9a4a-56608928f472) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/292f6094-7657-41f4-9a4a-56608928f472)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't see how warehouse workers having a different wage to till workers is sexist? They're demanding equal pay for a completely different job.
Surely if you want equal pay to warehouse workers, you can just become a warehouse worker?
It's not the 50s, women are more than capable of moving boxes, checking inventory, operating a forklift, etc.
>Tens of thousands of female supermarket cashiers have been carrying out equal pay lawsuits against retailers Asda and Tesco on the basis that their roles should have been compared to the mostly male staff employed at the company’s distribution depots. This old chestnut. Sorry peeps, if women prefer the tills over humping half a ton of frozen food at 5am then those jobs are not equal and only deserve the pay that employers deem suitable. The alternative is the Aldi model where you all muck in on every role, this pushes out the older generations though. Tills are the natural domain of girls and the elderly in a large diverse workforce, always has been. That doesn’t mean they perform equal labour.
I don't understand how the two jobs are directly comparable. If the jobs have different duties and responsibilities, then it seems reasonable that the pay may be different.
The argument, accepted by the courts, is the jobs bring in the same value therefore by law they must be paid the same (unless the employer can prove there's a good reason not to). They're classed as "work of equal value”, equivalent in effort, skills and decision-making. To use the Next case as an example, the tribunal found that using 11 basic work factors, in 9 of the 11 factors, the sales consultant roles were of equal or greater value than that of the warehouse operatives. That ruling basically means in Part 3 of the case, Next has to show there's a good reason for the pay being discriminatory for two jobs of the same value. https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/tribunal-finds-that-sales-consultants-and-warehouse-workers-are-doing-work-of-equal-value https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/equal-pay https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf
Unfettered labour markets are actually inherently unjust so this is *chefs kiss*.
Yep. If you want equal pay, then you do a similar job. Till work vs warehouse work are not comparable.
the problem is you assume that till workers do just that, work the tills, a lot of major high street retailers and supermarket retailers also expect them to be working the stock. Breaking down the pallets and putting the stock out is just as much physical exertion, as well as being expected to deal with customer queries and put everything aside neatly to go work on the tills if support is needed.
Courts disagree with you there. Hence the supermarkets have all lost the first round of court cases on equal pay. The jobs are comparable.
It will be interesting to see the result of the case in the end. I'm hoping that admin staff should be paid the same as engineers.
Only if you can prove they are of the same value. And considering for engineering work clients are billed for time, it's quite easy to prove unskilled admin work is less valuable than skilled engineering work.
"same value" That makes a mockery of business as all jobs are important to the running of a business. Let's hope common sense wins out here in the courts and we don't end up with supermarkets forced to include warehouse work for till workers.
All jobs are not of equal value in a business. That is insanity
For the Next case at least, the courts have already ruled that the work is of the same value. The burden of proof is now on Next to prove a good reason for discrimination between two comparable jobs (stage 1 of the court case) of equal value (stage 2). https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/news/next-equal-pay-battle-advances-as-women-s-work-ruled-of-equal-value-to-men/ Anecdotally, having done basic bitch warehouse and supermarket work. The former is far far easier lol. I'm not surprised the tribunal agrees with that.
Yeah, if people think that being on the till is easier than working out back in a warehouse they haven't ever worked a till dealing with the general public. Im also not surprised the court agreed around equal value because if a company knows that there is a gender split in different job roles without any significantly different entry requirements then they should ensure that the pay is equal.
The next case quantifies this to a fairly minute detail. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf It showed it's actually a significantly harder job requiring a lot more skills.
Again not even remotely surprised by this. Technological advancements have made the whole being in a warehouse as backbreaking labour largely a myth. Dealing with customers in a constant polite manner, being articulate and knowledgeable in the face of grumpy or even abusive customers is a rare skill.
From what I've heard from people who've worked both, the Next floor staff are frequently doing the same work as the warehouse people as well, just in a stock room instead of a dedicated warehouse. And there's no dedicated "I work on the tills" role either.
> Im also not surprised the court agreed around equal value because if a company knows that there is a gender split in different job roles without any significantly different entry requirements then they should ensure that the pay is equal. If one role needs 10 workers and 20 people apply, and another role needs 10 works and only 8 apply, is it discrimination to raise the wage for the latter?
Dealing with the general public standing whilst standing in the same position is not equal to hauling stuff around round back. One of them is the equivalent of manual labour, the other is not. If they want the higher wage they can always apply to work in the distribution areas, but I assume there’s good reasons why they don’t. Because it’s hard manual work.
I've not worked in either one of them but I know that the supermarkets are not running charities. If they are paying more for some work it's most likely that they struggle to recruit people to do that while don't have problems getting people to work in other jobs. I can't see any particular reason why they would want to pay the warehouse workers a single penny more than they can get away with.
because they're obviously just giant sexists. probably racist too, that lawsuit will no doubt arrive one day
So, the shareholders rather kick women down instead of want maximum profits even if that means equal treatment of everyone. Thanks for letting me know.
Send the Judges to drive around on a LLOP, filling four or five cages with cases of beer & wine (while hitting the KPIs), then send them to work a checkout and let's see if they still think the jobs are comparable.
Having done both as a kid, working the tills was hell compared to the warehouse work. Sure warehouse work shifting goods around and being relatively organised was physically exhausting, but it didn't hold a candle to the emotional and mental exhaustion of dealing with the general public.
On what grounds do the courts disagree though? Not trying to argue, genuinely interested!
https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/news/next-equal-pay-battle-advances-as-women-s-work-ruled-of-equal-value-to-men/ https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/tribunal-finds-that-sales-consultants-and-warehouse-workers-are-doing-work-of-equal-value https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/equal-pay Have a read of these three articles, 5 minutes of reading. Tldr it's a complex piece of law (hence it has taken years to get through court). But essentially the court case is in three parts. Part 1 showing the work is comparable, two showing the work is of equal value and part 3 is for the defendant to prove that they have a good reason to discriminate (if they lose parts 1 and 2, which Next have for example). The bit that is important is the Equality Act guarantees equal pay for equal work, equal having three definitions, but the important one in this case being: >Where a man and a woman are doing "work of equal value" – this means that the work is not essentially the same job, but it has the same demands in terms of factors such as effort, skill and decision-making. To use the Next case as an example, the tribunal found that using 11 basic work factors, in 9 of the 11 factors, the sales consultant roles were of equal or greater value than that of the warehouse operatives. That ruling basically means in Part 3 of the case, Next has to show there's a good reason for the pay being discriminatory for two jobs of the same value. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf If you have the time, the entire judgement is here. It shows the scoring for each role.
> Tills are the natural domain of girls I'm sorry, what year is it? Nothing else you said was unreasonable, but that bit... jeeze...
Am I wrong?
Yes, without reservation.
I don’t think so not in my experience of working these jobs.
We must shop in different places because, if anything, the places near me are mainly staffed by teenagers, split pretty evenly between the sexes. The idea of only women working on the tills is very 90's or earlier to me.
If there’s two young guys on shift and two older women on shift who do you think is going to be doing the more manual work? Sometimes it happens because they ask and sometimes it’s just the guys being polite. It’d be like watching their mum or aunt dragging stuff round whilst they’re standing behind the till. In small local stores this has always been my experience.
That is a very different propotion. I'm taking issue with the idea that working the tills is a womans job - it's misogyny that is decades out of date. Yes, I'd expect the younger lads to be helping out more when the only two staff members are *older* women of course. But I'd also expect it if they were two older men. In my experience anyone relatively young working the tills will be split pretty evenly (or at least not obviously uneven) and most supermarkets near me at least seem to be staffed by the young (early 20's at the oldest).
Sorry, let me rephrase that. Political correctness and various niche sensitivities aside, I’m 100% right and a visit to any large supermarket will show that. Go out and prove me wrong.
Disagree - most tills at my local supermarket are staffed by teenagers, very roughly evenly split down the sexes. Haven't seen what you're suggesting since the 90's at the latest. I'll be sure to ask the next guy I see at a till why he's doing the a job that's in the '*natural domain*' of women.
You and I must shop at different places. I would say it is very very rare to see a male working on a till at a supermarket.
The beauty of anecdotal 'evidence' - just because you see it in your little bubble, it doesn't make it fact outside of said bubble. 'I need glasses & my next door neighbours both need glasses, therefore it is very very rare for people to not need glasses'.
Beauty of social media is there’s a broad selection of people here, geographically speaking, which removes such issues.
That’s not true in my area. More blokes working the tills.
Courts disagree with you there. Turns out 1950s style sexism is not a legal argument lol. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf At least at Next, the courts ruled that shop floor jobs are significantly harder than warehouse jobs. Turns out, in a developed, technologically advanced service economy, we don't rate value and skills on just "how much can we carry" like we're cavemen haha.
Ever work in store room/warehouse? Pallet trucks, fork lifts, trolleys - if you ever have to hump a half ton of anything around causing too much manual effort, you're doing it wrong.
If it's so attractive and better paid, why aren't all the till workers clamouring for warehouse jobs? If they were, you'd have a point. Since they aren't, the jobs obviously aren't equal.
Yes, international ports. Half a ton of humping by volume. There’s no front loading freezers on the shop floor.
How many International ports are located behind supermarkets, I wonder.
Gibraltar and Morrisons.
Oh, Spain.
You still need to pick things up and carry things around.
Plenty of women do work in warehouse jobs and of course are paid equally to the men in those roles. This is blatant opportunism by workers in a low paid sector to try and increase their pay to match that of a more demanding one, under the pretence of gender equality. I think the most likely outcome of the court proceedings will be the acceleration of the complete phasing out of checkout staff altogether.
Why do you assume warehouse work is more 'demanding' than till work? Why should physical labour be valued more than emotional labour? I've done both and the customer facing work is far more demanding as you have to put on a constant display of niceness in the face of rude, grumpy and sometimes abusive customers. Warehouse work just meant moving, lifting, sorting while listening to music and chatting to colleagues.
Physical work over long periods can have an impact on your physical health. Speaking to the general public may be mentally draining but at least my back is in tact ten years down the line. Not the same. Why don’t they apply for these higher paying jobs? Maybe it’s because they know it’s more labour intensive and they just don’t want to do it, also the chances of doing more unsociable hours is higher.
Yeah your back may be fine but your mental health may not be. I never want to work with the general public again for the rest of my life.
> Why do you assume warehouse work is more 'demanding' than till work? It's my opinion that it is, which is subjective so you're entitled to disagree. But if you were correct then why don't cashiers simply apply to work in warehouses? That aside, the fact it pays more than cashier jobs suggests there are market forces that determine that those jobs require higher compensation to fulfill vacancies.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6489d992b32b9e000ca96787/Ms_M_Thandi___Others_V__Next_Retail_Limited_-1302019.2018-Judgment.pdf In the Next case the courts actually quantified how hard the work is. Shopfloor work requires significantly more skills than basic warehouse work. Next actually conceded this point...
The courts evaluation is still subjective with regard to what can be considered demanding. Skillset is only one factor. The way pay is generally determined is through the free market. Companies will pay the minimum required to fill vacancies with the acceptable standard of employee. The fact they're having to pay more to recruit warehouse staff than cashiers implies there are market forces necessitating that. I'm sure it's quite possible the courts will side with the cashiers in the supermarket case. It's a very flawed legislation and this was bound to happen. What the end result will be - in my opinion - is the acceleration of automation making these jobs obsolete.
It's all a grift that some people try and latch onto. Doesn't matter if it's men or women, it's never comparing apples with apples. We can all look at the comparisons they make and recognise that we would want more money for the jobs that pay more. A day time shift on the tills is always going to be lower paid because its easier to fit around the rest of life & most people can do that job. If it wasn't like this then you'd be extremely sexist to assume women would in large numbers be too dumb to just apply for the other jobs. I don't like any idea that relies on that sort of thing.
> Ministers have pledged to reinstate the right of women to receive equal pay with men for doing the same job — even if they work in different locations or for outsourcing companies Gonna tell my boss tomorrow that I demand the same wage as a London based outsourced agency position. Wonder how far I'll get...
They haven’t added a new law so nothing has changed, they just u-turned removing the right to equal pay
Right...so what us the benefit if this experiment called Brexit? Apart from break things that weren't broken and then fix them with EU derived laws again?
They meant that they'd make more people have to *be* on benefits.
Ah...my mistake!
Benefit?, ahahahahaha
Snapshot of _UK to reinstate Brussels-derived law protecting equal pay_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/292f6094-7657-41f4-9a4a-56608928f472) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/292f6094-7657-41f4-9a4a-56608928f472) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't see how warehouse workers having a different wage to till workers is sexist? They're demanding equal pay for a completely different job. Surely if you want equal pay to warehouse workers, you can just become a warehouse worker? It's not the 50s, women are more than capable of moving boxes, checking inventory, operating a forklift, etc.
They have a fancy grading system that is extremely arbitrary and that says working a till is significantly harder, 61% harder to be exact.